# Guantanamo- Detainees do have GC Rights after all **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 11, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056 "2006-07-11T16:58:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/61 "2006-07-11T23:48:22Z")
What I don’t get is why the Administration couldn’t have just aimed for the side of caution and granted these folks the rights of POWs from the get-go. Why couldn’t they have said, “Look. We got these guys who don’t fit POW status, but we’re going to treat them as such until we can figure out what we’re going to do with them.” How much face would the Administration have lost if they had done this? I’m not asking a rhetorical question. I’m hoping someone can help me understand this situation, because I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/62 "2006-07-11T23:49:17Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I’m fairly certain the war on terror is supposed to be metaphorical. > > We have a war on drugs, too, and drug dealers aren’t kept as POWs. > > As part of the larger metaphorical “war on terror” there have been “real” wars ala Afghanistan, and persons who were legitimately “soldiers” and not “criminals” should be held as POWs. Criminals should be held as criminals. except that the administration has made it clear that when they are talking about T.W.a.T, they are indeed invoking ‘war’ in the military sense. hence the multiple references to “we’re at war” especially when attempting to justify the suspension of civil rights of citizens of the US (Padillo?), as well as the rational for not having to resort to pesky things like judicial oversite of wiretapping etc. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/63 "2006-07-12T01:54:05Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Uhm, no, it isn’t. Unlike a “normal” war in which it’s safe to hold captive any member of the opposing armed forces without having a specific attack to which they’re linked, you cannot simply hold a member of al Quaeda simply for being a member of al Quaeda. Being a member isn’t a crime, as far as i’m aware. Committing ad act of terrorism, or being _suspected_ of committing an act of terrorism, is. Certainly being a member (or being suspected of being a member) raises the likelihood of someone having committed some attack, but it isn’t certain. Uhm, yes. [AUMF](http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html). Emphasis added: > [@](#): > > IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. > [@](#): > > If a person in Guantanmo is tried, admits his membership of al Quaeda, but is found innocent of being involved in any attack, he’s going to be set free. He’s committed no crime. Maybe. But they can also be turned over to the coutnry where they are citizens and where they can be tried for conspiracy, or some such charge. That has, in fact, happened to some of the detainees. > [@monstro](#): > > ``` > What I don't get is why the Administration couldn't have just aimed for the side of caution and granted these folks the rights of POWs from the get-go. > > ``` For the simple reason that you cannot intorrogate POWs. You can’t do it in a rough fashion like Bush wanted and you can’t do it in a nice fashion like you or I might want them to do. You cannot offer preferential treatment to those who choose to rat on their fellow terrorists\*-- all you can do is ask for name, rank and serial number. POWs are treated in a very specific way, and for good reason. We don’t want them to be pressured to commit treason, for one thing, by aiding and abetting the enemy. But we do what to be able to pressure someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed to tell us about plans of future attacks. Now, we can argue about what tactics can be used to “pressure” him, but I want him interrogated. And I want al Qaeda operatives and suspected operatives to be incentivzed to rat out their co-conspirators just like we’d do with someone in the Mafia. \*we have to, for the sake of argument, agree that they are potentially terrorists at least. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/64 "2006-07-12T01:57:42Z")
> [@wring](#): > > (your link didn’t work for me by the way) > > it opened in January of 2002; to the best of my recollection, the administration was denying access (apparently not to the Red Cross, but they at first refused to allow their reports to be released) I misremembered that, thanks for the correction. The link works fine in the post where I fixed it. [It’s a BBC article.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3179858.stm) You’re probably thinking of Amnesty International or some other group. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/65 "2006-07-12T02:20:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > \*we have to, for the sake of argument, agree that they are potentially terrorists at least. Okay. For the sake of argument: Considering the large number of detainees rounded up solely for the bounty they brought, I can’t see that they’re any more “potentially” terrorists than any other Afghani/Pakistani citizen. And I’m not willing to accept that all Afghanis and Pakistanis are potential terrorists any more than I’m willing to accept that all 15 year old boys in Oakland are potential gang members. It automatically shifts our perceptions to “guilty until proven innocent.” That, coupled with the story out of the Guardian that I posted last week leads me to believe that the administration has no interest whatever humane treatment of prisoners, or “doing this thing right” because it’s never been done before and golly gee, we just don’t know how. I don’t buy that. The British have been dealing with terrorism and the IRA for how long, now? We couldn’t just ask how they dealt with potential terrorists? They _are_ our last (pretty much) ally in this thing. No. It was never about that. I agree with your previous statement: It’s because you can’t interrogate POW’s. And we wanted to interrogate us some terrorists. My word, yes. Even if we had no proof they had any ties to al Qaida or the Taliban or any other terrorist cell. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/66 "2006-07-12T02:30:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Uhm, yes. [AUMF](http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html). Ah, ok. I wasn’t aware of that, so I apologse for doubting you. I’ll amend my statement to say that a member of any organisation other than al Quaeda (or who have taken such people under their protection) can’t be held or charged simply for being a member of that organisation. I’m rather startled by this AUMF, though. I see it was passed soon after (and cites) 9/11, so I suppose that explains why the President has been given the power to detain people even if they are innocent of any crime. > [@](#): > > Maybe. But they can also be turned over to the coutnry where they are citizens and where they can be tried for conspiracy, or some such charge. That has, in fact, happened to some of the detainees. And I don’t dispute that; but in those countries, too, unless they have a law criminalising membership of a terroristic organisation, can’t simply hold or charge them for being members. As you say, they’d need to have an actual charge, such as conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/67 "2006-07-12T02:44:33Z")
> [@](#): > > We have to, for the sake of argument, agree that they are potentially terrorists at least. Who isn’t? What an utterly meaningless statement. How would anyone be able to prove he’s not a “potential terrorist?” You keep putting the cart before the horse. We can’t treat people like criminals until we prove it first. I don’t give a shit if poor little Shrub doesn’t get to torture and interrogate “potential terrorists.” Fuck him. If he wants to call them criminals, let him prove it. If he wants to call them enemies of war, then he has to follow the GC regs for POWs. What he’s trying to get away with now is just bullshit anyway you slice it. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/68 "2006-07-12T02:58:25Z")
Regarding the OP: No shit. Is there anyone besides the most slavish Bushites who had any doubt? Of course not. But does it matter? You know how much **FUN** you can have with four free years of torture! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/69 "2006-07-12T03:01:54Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How would anyone be able to prove he’s not a “potential terrorist?” He could kill himself, no potential after that. However, in real life it seems that clearing oneself at Gitmo is not impossible. There are 120 prisoners that have been [cleared for release.](http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/06/29/gitmo_to_close.html) Trouble is, the [State department can’t figure out how to make them go away](http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/14909192.htm): > [@](#): > > State Department legal advisor John Bellinger III during a conference call in which he repeatedly cited the ‘‘conundrum’’ of repatriating or getting third-country asylum for some 100 captives here. > … > ‘‘The difficulties with Guantánamo begin with the fact that a number of the countries actually deny that these individuals are even nationals of their countries,’’ said Bellinger, not disclosing the number. > > Additionally, the United States has ruled out repatriation to some nations, for example China, for fear that their Muslim nationals now held here would be tortured if returned to the communist country. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/70 "2006-07-12T03:10:46Z")
> [@Cluricaun](#): > > There could be (and hopefully to me \*will \* be) some very interesting things rising out of this. Who is responsible for enforcement of the codes contained in the GC? Is it some body that we’ll easily defy and ignore? Interesting thought. Maybe we will get a signing statement. Possible > [@](#): > > We fully support this legislation and its intent. We interpret its intent is being that we have to follow the applicable parts of the Geneva Convention except in cases of war, insurrection, riot, terrorism or other conditions to be announced. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/71 "2006-07-12T03:48:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Who isn’t? What an utterly meaningless statement. How would anyone be able to prove he’s not a “potential terrorist?” You keep putting the cart before the horse. We can’t treat people like criminals until we prove it first. I don’t give a shit if poor little Shrub doesn’t get to torture and interrogate “potential terrorists.” Fuck him. If he wants to call them criminals, let him prove it. If he wants to call them enemies of war, then he has to follow the GC regs for POWs. What he’s trying to get away with now is just bullshit anyway you slice it. Gee, thanks for quoting only the footnote in my post. :rolleyes: Look, when you pick up a suspect he is a suspect, whether you like it or not. I never once said they had to prove they weren’t terrorists, so stop putting words in my mouth. If anyone wants to debate this further, he can open a GD thread. My only real interest in this thread was to correct error that I corrected in my first post. I have no interest in responding to every foaming-at-the-mouth nut who comes along and makes unsupported claims about what the GC does or does not say about POWs. No court in the US has ruled that these guys are POWs, and not even the Democratic leaders in Congress are saying that they are. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/72 "2006-07-12T04:16:43Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Calling: > **DrDeth** > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3701541&postcount=115](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3701541&postcount=115) > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3702486&postcount=118](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3702486&postcount=118) > . You rang? I don’t understand your point. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/73 "2006-07-12T04:23:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It pisses me off when nomally intelligent posters like you go on about stuff that they don’t understand. This is exactly like the time, a few weeks ago, when you claimed that it was treason to leak Valerie Plame’s name to the press. Well John, since you also said I don’t know what the fuck I am talking about, I guess I pissed you off too. However, since the Supreme Court tends to agree with me, then I will be happy with that. I don’t know if you are one of the posters that consistently refer to this as a “war on terror” and therefore we are in a state of war as a nation against these groups. But all I know is that at least, finally, this society is starting to get some sense back and the Supreme Court agrees with my point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/74 "2006-07-12T04:26:10Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I’m fairly certain the war on terror is supposed to be metaphorical. > > We have a war on drugs, too, and drug dealers aren’t kept as POWs. > > As part of the larger metaphorical “war on terror” there have been “real” wars ala Afghanistan, and persons who were legitimately “soldiers” and not “criminals” should be held as POWs. Criminals should be held as criminals. Very true Martin, but in many situations, the Republican party has repeated constantly that they are justified in doing many things that erode civil liberties because we are at war. I don’t know if you are one of the people who say this, but I do know that the doublespeak is starting to come and bite these conservative war-mongers in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/75 "2006-07-12T04:35:26Z")
Parsing out the POW bits from the GC: [ARTICLE 4](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4) > [@](#): > > A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: > > (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. > > (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. > > (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. > > (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. > > (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. > > (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. > > B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: > > (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. > > (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. > > C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. The insurgents do not appear to qualify under (1) through (5). What about (6)? No. B(1)? No. B(2)? No, since they don’t qualify under any of the previous classes. So the insurgents at Guantanimo do not appear to qualfy as POWs under the GC. Have the insurgents, including Al Queda, signed the GC? Is the GC binding when it has been signed by only one side? [these bits apply to _civilians_](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm), but are there only POWs and Civilians? Article III of the above states that: > [@](#): > > Article 3 > > In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: > > 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. > > To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: > > (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; > > (b) Taking of hostages; > > (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; > > (d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. The insurgents certainly do not qualify as civilians. Moreover: > [@](#): > > Article 4 > Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. > > Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. Article V indicates that: > [@](#): > > _Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State._ > > Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. > > In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. One might argue that the third paragraph covers the insurgents, but the modifying bit: … They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention _at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be_. Blurs things up a bit. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/76 "2006-07-12T04:58:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > For the simple reason that you cannot intorrogate POWs. You can’t do it in a rough fashion like Bush wanted and you can’t do it in a nice fashion like you or I might want them to do. You cannot offer preferential treatment to those who choose to rat on their fellow terrorists\*-- all you can do is ask for name, rank and serial number. Have the rules changed since WWII? All a POW has to reveal is name, rank and serial no. In WWII you could be \*\* asked\*\* any question your captor wanted to ask. We got a lot of briefings on the danger of getting chatty. A very common technique that we were warned about was the “good cop,” “bad cop” routine. When first picked up you would be cursed, yelled at, left cold, hungry and thirsty. Then a nice office would come in, appologize offering the excuse that the cabbage heads who had picked you up were uncouth peasants who didn’t know anything. You would be offered a cigararette, coffee, water. The the nice man would just start asking you questions about your outfit. By the time he came he very likely already knew your group and squadron. He would mention specific people like “How is Col. XYZ these days?” The object being to show you that he knew so much about your group that anything you said would be old hat. If you fell for the bait and chatted he might just learn a new fact. It was impressed upon us that they weren’t looking for big revelations. Just bits and pieces that they could add to their store of intelligence. I would like a cite that POW’s can’t be questioned because it certainly didn’t used to be that way. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/77 "2006-07-12T07:02:27Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, that’s a very good question. I’ve never agreed with the Administration’s prorcess of determining who was and who wasn’t a member of al Qaeda, but I think we can safely assume that ObL’s driver and bodyguard, Mr. Hamdam, is. He is, after all, the specific guy who triggered the recent SCOTUS case. But that is the very point. Hamdam was actually captured on the filed of battle (unlike many others who were rounded up later in Africa, Europe and afghanistan after the battle was over- sold to the US by warlords to settle scores. Let us look at Hamdam. Let us admit he was a bodyguard for ObL. Let’s admit he was a driver for him. Let’s admit he was an affiliate of Al Qaeda. Does that make him a war criminal or enemy combatant. Did we take Hitler’s drivers and bodyguards to Nuremburg? Did we hold them as enemy combatants? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/78 "2006-07-12T07:03:55Z")
IIRC the only high value Al Qaeda suspect (I forget his name) captured following the war in Afghanistan was kept out of Gyuantanamo and tortured properly elesewhere rather than given torture lite at Gitmo. Given the number of Al Qaeda symathisers and activisists now currently at loose in the world because of the Iraq war and the aftermath of the Agfhanistan war including Gitmo and extraordinary rendition and torture and Abu Ghraib and US soldiers raping children and killing their family, and US soldiers killing a whole village beacause one of their brother soldiers was killed in an ambush, releasing a mere 500 people in Guantanamo who have some affiliation with Al Qaeda would be a mere drop in the ocean. The largest recruiting agent for Al Qaeda has been the US Government. There was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the illegal invasion; there sure is now. In 2001 Al Qaeda was able to find 19 mass murderers to crash airplanes into buildings. I suspect that there are many more now willing to do that than there were back then. 13% of British Muslims believe that the people who bombed London last year are martyrs. That certainly would not have been their view before the demonization of the Islamic world by Bush, Blair and others. Guantanamo is a major net deficit in any War on Terror- it actually increases the power of the terrorists. But the US Government will find it difficult to re-spin its rhetoric about the worst of the worst. As an example of the effect of releases, all British (save David Hicks who is now British as well as Australian) detainees, including one classified as the first for a military tribunal have now been living freely in the UK for over a year with no reports whatsoever of al Qaeda or terrorist involvement. The only thing that keeps Gitmo going now is the Bush Admin’s ainability to close it because of the corner they have backed there way into. If anyone is supporting Al Qaeda by their actions, it is the Bush Administration. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/79 "2006-07-12T07:15:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t doubt that. > And, btw, it doesn’t matter if a member of al Qaeda didn’t specifically plot to do any of those things that violate the laws of war-- they’re members of an organization that doesn’t respect the law so war, and that’s all that matters. In amplification of my above point, the Nazi party were seen in the same light as Al Qaeda, and certainly the SS were. Why were all those thousands of people not rounded up and charged as illegal combattants. Oh, I remember, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman et al were not neo-cons but understood that there are limits to warfare and retribution. They chose to charge and sentence the real perpertrators and to engage in denazification which allowed a pariah state to reach competence and peace in less than a generation, whereas Bush is engaged in a process that will ensure festering sores of Islamic vilence for generations to come. People will be shouting ‘Remember Guantanamo’ to our children as they creep beneath western defences and re-visit the horror of 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056/80 "2006-07-12T07:46:05Z")
> **[Pentagon breaks with Bush on detentions](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/12/usa.guantanamo)** > > · Geneva convention covers Guantánamo detainees · Supreme court ruling prompts policy switch \*Pentagon breaks with Bush on detentions · Geneva convention covers Guantánamo detainees · Supreme court ruling prompts policy switch The Bush administration was facing the collapse of its detention regime in the war on terror yesterday after the Pentagon said for the first time that prisoners at Guantánamo and elsewhere in US military custody around the world would be granted the protections of the Geneva convention. In a memo released yesterday, the Pentagon’s second in command, Gordon England, broke with the Bush administration’s insistence of the past five years that the rules of war do not apply to the fight against al-Qaida. “I request that you promptly review all relevant directives, regulations, policies, practices and procedures” to bring them in line with protections under article three of the Geneva convention, Mr England wrote. Article three outlaws torture and humiliating and degrading treatment, and says prisoners are entitled to a hearing by a regularly constituted court. \* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guantanamo-detainees-do-have-gc-rights-after-all/364056.md?page=5)